Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed a Professional Responsibility Board decision concerning a public reprimand imposed on an attorney in inactive status for inappropriate correspondence with a family court and the Board. The Court held that Vermont disciplinary authorities retain jurisdiction over attorneys on inactive status, but declined to adopt the Board’s conclusions that the attorney violated the cited disciplinary rules or to impose the reprimand. The Court directed that the conduct instead be considered if the attorney later seeks to reactivate his license.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court and Professional Responsibility Board retain jurisdiction over an attorney on inactive status for conduct allegedly violating the professional-conduct rules.
- Whether Keitel violated DR 7-102(A)(1) and DR 7-106(C)(6) based on his written correspondence.
- Whether a public reprimand was an appropriate disposition under the circumstances.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court and Professional Responsibility Board retain jurisdiction over an attorney on inactive status for acts that violate the applicable ethics rules.
- The Court declined to adopt the hearing panel's legal conclusion that Keitel violated DR 7-102(A)(1) and DR 7-106(C)(6).
- A public reprimand was not adopted; instead, the purposes of discipline would be adequately served by requiring consideration of Keitel's conduct by the Character and Fitness Committee if he later sought to reactivate his license.
Key quotations
“While we agree that this Court and the Board retain jurisdiction over attorneys on inactive status, we decline to adopt the hearing panel’s legal conclusion that respondent violated DR 7-102(A)(l) and DR 7-106(C)(6).” (172 Vt. at 537)
“At such time respondent seeks to resume active status as a practicing attorney, the conduct which gave rise to the charges shall be considered by the Character and Fitness Committee in determining whether respondent may resume active status.” (172 Vt. at 539)
Factual background
Sheldon Keitel, an attorney admitted in Vermont but on inactive status, represented himself in divorce proceedings before the Washington Family Court. In correspondence concerning an appeal, he made an inappropriate personal attack on the family court magistrate, and he later sent the disciplinary hearing panel a letter containing additional inappropriate comments directed at the magistrate.
Procedural history
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a formal petition charging Keitel with violations of DR 7-102(A)(1) and DR 7-106(C)(6) based on correspondence containing personal attacks on a family court magistrate and additional inappropriate comments to the disciplinary hearing panel. The hearing panel issued findings, conclusions, and a public reprimand; Keitel did not appeal but filed an open letter with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter, declined to adopt the alleged violations and the reprimand, and directed that the conduct be considered if Keitel later sought reactivation of his license.
Remand instructions
No remand was ordered. If Keitel later seeks to resume active status, the Character and Fitness Committee must consider the conduct underlying the charges in determining whether he may resume active status.